The Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency

Urban Renewal in Idaho: Urban renewal essentially allows cities and counties to take tax dollars and devote them to economic development projects. This is done by taking an area, drawing a boundary around it and determining the initial taxing value. Every increase in value within that boundary causes more taxes to be generated. Those additional taxes over the initial amount are provided to the urban renewal agency. The urban renewal agency is then to accomplish projects that are approved by the city or county.

Within the City of Sandpoint, we have two districts. The "Northern District" surrounds the airport. The "Downtown District" encompasses the downtown and some of the surrounding areas. The Northern District was created with the idea of saving money to pave Great Northern Road. The Downtown District was created with the idea of re-doing streets and sidewalk in the downtown in order to revitalize our commercial area. The Downtown District has a very specific plan. The plan specifies which streets are to be completed and in what order.

The plans are similar to a contract between the urban renewal agency and the city. Urban renewal agencies are independent organizations. Therefore, they can do what they want. However, cities are given control over the urban renewal agencies by being able to approve the plan. That way the City knows that the tax dollars it is choosing to forego are being used for economic development purposes that further the interests of the city.

We've had some rough spots with our urban renewal. The Northern District hasn't had significant development within the last five years and therefore doesn't have a lot of funds to spend. Despite the plan, the Northern District chose to re-do some streets near Farmin school several year ago as a public image project. On the other hand, the Downtown District makes over $200,000 dollars a year and therefore has significant abilities.

In 2009 the City of Sandpoint cut a number of projects from the budget. Sandpoint's Urban Renewal Agency then decided to fund some of these projects including improvements to the City beach pilings and partial payment for upgrades to the police communications system. These projects were not part of the Downtown District's plan.

I'm a big supporter of urban renewal. I think that it is one of the most powerful tools available to municipalities. However, I believe that it should be used cautiously and carefully. When an urban renewal agency spends tax dollars on projects that weren't previously approved, it is a very serious problem. Urban renewal has now hired independent counsel and has taken many steps towards restoring my confidence.

Within the last six months, the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency has discussed amending its downtown plan to allow it to spend money on projects other than those originally considered. Since the plan amendments must be approved by the City Council, the Council and urban renewal need to effectively agree on how to use urban renewal monies and what projects to do.

Our urban renewal agency is composed of volunteers. They do an excellent job and stretch their dollars a long ways. For the past 5 years there has been almost no administrative overhead thanks for the board volunteering their services. The difficulty is that the urban renewal board holds a different perspective than the Council on budgeting and tax dollars. They don't see how we scrape for $30,000 a year to hire a new part-time assistant or buy a police car. They don't know that we cut officer training in order to save costs. They spend the money that we carefully dedicate for economic development.

My biggest fear in this process is that the urban renewal agency will undertake a very detailed and complex process to change the plan without talking to the City Council. Without a common vision, I would expect the plan amendments to be rejected by the City Council. This would be very discouraging. For that reason, I have been very vocal about what I want to see in a plan. I've tried to voice this opinion loudly and early in order to avoid a future conflict. This has drawn some criticism from the urban renewal agency but I think that it's resulted in a better result.

We had a joint workshop with the urban renewal board several months ago to consider their latest draft of the amended downtown plan. The plan was very broad. It basically allowed urban renewal to spend money any way that they choose. Because these are tax dollars and based upon some of their past spending decisions, I have real concerns with this approach. I want to know exactly how they are going to spend the money. For that reason, I said that I won't support the draft plan and requested a more specific plan with detailed, prioritized projects. Currently, the urban renewal has completed their draft version and I expect that the Council will take it up next month.

June 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether to approve the new Sandcreek gateway. ITD has allocated funds to the City of Sandpoint for improvements to the alleyway by the Panida theater.

Analysis 1: This is one of the greatest things about being on the City Council. When I have the opportunity to be a part of something that will change the City for the better. I hope that this is one of those. However, I'm cautious. Amazing public art can sometimes be elusive. There are so many great projects that I see which beautify their cities. However, sometimes you see spectacular failures.

Conclusion 1: We have been very lucky to attract a wonderful artist to design and build an archway near the alleyway by the Panida. The proposed design looks incredible. I'm optimistic. We voted to approve the design.

May 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: The new insurance contracts. Each year we approve new insurance contracts. This year the employees requested an increase in our insurance coverage.

Analysis 1: Insurance rates continue to go up. Last year we shifted some of the costs to the employees so that there was an incentive to control costs. For that reason, I favor allowing the employees to have more of a choice in choosing their own benefits.

Conclusion 1: I supported the new insurance contracts with the expectation that we will have to find approximately $20,000 additional dollars this year for the benefits.

Issue 2: Water Accountability Ordinance. In September 2009, the City Council considered whether to remove fluoride from the water. It was a tied vote and the Mayor voted to leave fluoride in the water. This year Jamie Davis has made one of her goals removing fluoride from the water. She has proposed the Water Accountability Ordinance as a comprehensive approach towards water additives.

Analysis 2: The Water Accountability Ordinance proposes to (1) make companies guarantee the safety of their additives; (2) make the City verify the purity of the additives; and (3) prohibit additives that don't meet purity and health guarantees. While this is a great philosophy, I don't think that it's a good law. It needs changes. Companies will never accept guaranteeing the health of their product for all people without conditions. Secondly, I think that the law creates an overly difficult burden for placing additives in the water with the goal of making the hurdles too high to jump for any company. To me a better law would be banning water additives altogether instead of implementing standards that are so stringent that no one will be able to meet them.

Conclusion 2: I couldn't support the Water Accountability Ordinance in its current form. I wanted to see some things changed. However, I never had the chance to make those amendments prior to it being voted on. Therefore, I had to vote against the ordinance. As no other motion was made, the matter died.

The Business Improvement District Petition.

Issue 1: Consideration of the Business Improvement District.

Facts 1: For decades, the City of Sandpoint has had a business association for the downtown. Historically, this organization operated through volunteers and contributions. In 2000, a majority of the businesses petitioned the City of Sandpoint to create a taxing district as permitted by Idaho Code - the Business Improvement District.

Since 2000, the City has collected the taxes from downtown businesses according to the method (square foot assessment) and rates approved by the BID board. Each year the City also contracts out the management of the BID to the Downtown Sandpoint Business Association. The DSBA uses the revenue to host events in the downtown, make improvements and support the costs of administration, namely a full-time staff member. In effect, the BID is self-created, self-managed and self-administered.

The BID creation, management and value have consistently been debated. Business across 5th Avenue are especially critical stating that they receive very few benefits from a downtown business association.

Approximately one year ago, opponents to the BID brought a petition to the City to disband the BID. Under Idaho Code, if a majority of the business owners petition the City, the City Council must disband the BID. This initial petition had multiple problems. The signatures had been collected over a period of years. Signatures on the petition no longer supported the measure or had moved. At that time, it was recommended that the City reject the petition. I made a specific request to our City Attorney that he inform the petitioners of the requirements for a valid petition.

In March 2010, the petitioners returned with a new petition. I was informed by email that the City Clerk, City Attorney and Mayor had rejected some of the signatures on the petition. Consequently, the petition didn't meet the majority requirement. The Mayor then placed the matter on the Administrative Committee agenda without a recommendation stating that the Council could voluntarily disband the BID, if we choose.

Analysis 1: This was frustrating situation. The Administrative Committee took no part in the analysis or rejection of the signatures. This was action taken by the Clerk, Mayor and City Attorney. Despite that, when the Mayor placed this matter on the Administrative agenda, she made the Council the focal point for criticisms on how the process was handled.

I am sympathetic to those criticisms in part. From my own review, I wasn't able to get a clear determination of the standards that the City used to evaluate the signatures. From the perspective of the petitioner, I am sure that it appears that the City is using changing standards.

Conclusion: The BID has always been a self-created and self-managed taxing entity. From my perspective, Council action to shut down the BID -without a valid petition- would be taking a step away from the independence that the City has typically given the BID. Further, there was no proposal before the City Council. The Mayor had placed the item on the agenda without an advocate, recommendation, or proposal.

We listened to both sides of the argument because many people had shown up to speak on the issue and it's important that they have a forum. After the arguments had been stated, I requested a motion on the issue. No motion was made. The matter died in committee.

March 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Neighborhood Waterfront Parks: The City of Sandpoint was originally platted with roads. Some of these roads end in the water. Typically, these waterfront areas are used by the adjacent landowners. Earlier in the year, I proposed to use these roadways as public, neighborhood parks. At the time of the proposal, the legal ownership of these rights of way was questioned. So the matter was researched. After the research it was brought back to the Council.

Analysis 1: This idea has been floating around for decades. As waterfront property prices increase, there are fewer places for the public to access the water. Plus, it's only going to become more difficult as time continues. It's completely possible that in 20 years we'll have some of the same waterfront access issues that you find in California where accesses are hidden, covered or obstructed in order to prevent the public from using them.

Conclusion 1: This is a controversial measure but important for the community. We have a chance here to create four waterfront parks. The research concluded that at least some of these are feasible. We took this to the next step by placing them into the parks plan which will be adopted in the near future. Next we'll look for funding. I received a lot of criticism from the neighbors on this issue but we cleared up a couple of issues and I'm looking forward to seeing thee develop in the next decade into small, neighborhood swimming holes.

Issue 2: Whether to create a small local improvement district on Sixth Avenue. The City is going to be making improvements this summer along Sixth Avenue. Homeowners along Sixth Avenue will be required in the future to make certain improvements incuding sidewalks, sewer and others. So Councilwoman Logan has taken it on herself to take advantage of the City's work and allow homeowners to make the required improvements while paying for them over a period of decades through an LID.

Analysis 1: This is a really good idea. It takes advantage of the City's costs and work to lower the costs of improvements that these other homeowners will have to do.

Conclusion 1: I supported this because it's a great proactive measure. Unfortunately, the neighborhood didn't have enough support to create the LID according to the statutory requirements. At some point in time, these neighbors will have to pay for these improvements. I wish that they could have spread the costs over a period of years.

Issue 3: Sandpoint Urban Renewal: The City of Sandpoint created two urban renewal districts more than 5 years ago. These districts take tax money and use it for economic development.

Analysis 3: I've been both a vocal proponent and opponent of the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency. I'll discuss this more in a later post. However, I know that the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency is re-doing their plans and I want to make sure that they are soliciting the opinion of the Council so that the plans will be approved by Council.

Conclusion 3: I met with several members of SURA to discuss some of my concerns. At that meeting I asked what I could do to help them with the plan amendments. They states that they would really like to know the goals of City Council. I asked Council members for their goals and moved to approve the goals so that SURA could rely on them in drafting their plan amendments. The measure passed with a few changes.

February 2010 City Council Mtg.

Issue 1: The Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail MOU: The Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail is a group of people attempting to create a mile-long waterfront trail from the City of Sandpoint to the City of Kootenai. It is a beautiful and amazing trail that right now is private property. In September 2009 the Cities of Ponderay, Kootenai and Sandpoint along with Bonner County were granted a $650,000 grant to assess possible contamination along the route of the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail.

This MOU is just to create a steering committee for the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail. DEQ is administering the grant and has found it time-consuming to approach the four entities separately to disseminate information and communicate. The MOU is for this purpose.

Analysis 1: I drafted the MOU. I serve as legal counsel for the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail. Consideration of the MOU was postponed until March.

Issue 2: Pedestrian Improvements. A member of Sandpoint's Pedestrian Advisory Committee was killed while crossing the street in late 2009. This has prompted the City, rightly, to review our pedestrian amenities.

Due to the lack of snow this year, we have funds that normally would be spent on pedestrian improvements. Councilman Reuter, requested that those funds, approximately $150,000, be used for pedestrian improvements. All together the cost of the improvements was approximately $200,000.

Analysis 2: This was a very important decision. Each year we have approximately $100,000 in funds to allocate among the departments for discretionary spending. So the ability to make $200,000 in improvements in the middle of the year is a very large decision. For that reason, it needed to be debated. WIth this proposal, Councilman Reuter was basically stating that pedestrian improvements were the highest priority for the public works department.

We debated the matter for a period of time. I eventually concluded that this was a good way to spend the money considering the recent pedestrian death. I would rather error on the side of caution and in favor of pedestrians. However, it is frustrating that we will be spending money in this instance to improve the same intersection where we rejected a 2008 grant for $100,000. All together I hope that the $200,000 has a dramatic impact on pedestrian safety.

Issue 3: Five new neighborhood beaches. For a while I have been interested in converting the City's old roads which end in the water to neighborhood parks. These roads are Larch, Ella, Boyer, Division and Euclid. At February meeting, I requested that the City research these rights of way and then send a letter to the adjacent property owners. The reason for this is that I believe that the City should use these at some time in the future for public, neighborhood parks. However, this should be a very gradual process as people are currently using these areas for their own space and any use of these public spaces needs to be sensitive to the adjacent property owners.

Analysis 3: At the Council meeting, it was suggested that staff research the ownership of these rights of way and return with their results. I completely supported this idea as any step that we take with these areas should be carefully considered.

Issue 4: Creation of A Joint Planning Commission: In the February Council meeting I proposed the creation of a joint planning commission between Sandpoint, Ponderay and Bonner County. The reason for this is that we are increasingly making planning decisions which affect our neighbors. In addition, we are letting opportunities for cooperation pass us by. As an example of an opportunity for cooperation, the City of Dover is planning to build a new sewer treatment plan in the next three years. Sandpoint is also planning to build a new sewer treatment plant within a similar time frame. We need to be looking at ways to regionally plan services in order to lower costs.

Analysis 4: A joint planning commission is authorized under Idaho Code. The commission can have as much or as little power as the jurisdictions want. I am willing to undertake this project and create a joint planning commission between the Cities of Sandpoint, Ponderay and Bonner County because I think that it will be helpful for planning our intertwined futures.

January 2010 City Council Mtg.

The Changing of The Council: It's difficult to watch the changing of the Council. For the past two years, I have worked very closely with Michael Boge and Helen Newton. For a shorter period of time, I have worked with John O'Hara.

No one is a Council member for the money. We are paid approximately $200 per month and health care benefits. I estimate that I average approximately 10 hours per week on Council business. So the hourly pay is not the incentive. Nor is the glory. The status of being a Council member is quickly overridden by the criticism.

We do it because we want to improve the City of Sandpoint. I genuinely believe that every Council member I have served with has the same overall goal. Under these circumstances, you develop a deep respect for the people serving with you. I'm sad to see Helen Newton, Michael Boge and John O'Hara leaving the Council. Together they have contributed decades of service. They worked hard and served very well.

That sadness is tempered by the prospect of the new Council members. They worked hard in their campaigns. They are bringing with them different areas of expertise for a larger number of perspectives on the Council. This is going to be a very exciting two years.

I compiled a list of the accomplishments of the 2008 - 2010 Council. I will try to attach it here at a later time.








Issue 1: Hands Free Cell Phone Ordinance. Mayor Hellar vetoed the cell phone ordinance. To override the veto requires four votes on the Council. I did not vote for the original cell phone ordinance because I don't feel that it is good policy to make cell phone usage illegal within an area as small as the City limits. It presents multiple problems in enforcement and also fairness. For that reason, I voted against the measure and voted against overriding the Mayor's veto. I expect Idaho legislation on this issue soon.

Issue 2: Election of Council President.

Historically, the Council president has been selected based on experience. In this circumstance, Carrie Logan and I are the longest-serving Council members. Since we have served the same amount of time, the number of votes is used to break the tie. This honor fell to me.

In reviewing whether to accept the position of Council president, I had very definite ideas of the role that the Council president should play. That individual should be highly engaged on issues and in constant communication with department heads and staff. I believe that a good Council president will make the Council much more efficient.

After starting with Berg & McLaughlin law firm in January, I was uncomfortable accepting a larger role on Council. I asked Carrie Logan whether she wanted the position. After conferring, we agreed that John Reuter was the natural selection for Council president. In nominating John Reuter for Council president, I requested that he focus on the issues that I stated earlier. John was confirmed and I think that he will do a very good job in leading this Council.